David Dayen: Behind Closed Doors, Hillary Clinton Sympathized With Goldman Sachs Over Financial Reform

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/behind-closed-doors-hillary-clinton-sympathized-with-goldman-sachs-over-financial-reform/

Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s previously secret speeches to big banks and trade groups in 2013 and 2014 show her exalting the work of her hosts, hardly a surprise when these groups paid her up to $225,000 an hour to chat them up.

Far from chiding Goldman Sachs for obstructing Democratic proposals for financial reform, Clinton appeared to sympathize with the giant investment bank. At a Goldman Sachs Alternative Investments Symposium in October 2013, Clinton almost apologized for the Dodd-Frank reform bill, explaining that it had to pass “for political reasons,” because “if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.”

Clinton added, “And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.”

Clinton praised Deutsche Bank in a 2014 speech for “the work that the Bank has done in New York City on affordable housing.”

While Deutsche Bank has given to anti-homelessness campaigns in the past, it was also cited in a New York State Senate report in January for refusing to maintain foreclosed properties in New York City neighborhoods and costing those communities millions in unpaid fines. Deutsche is also about to face a multi-billion-dollar penalty from the Justice Department for defrauding investors with low-quality mortgage securities, leading to the housing meltdown.

Those excerpts were among many listed in an 80-page document prepared by the Clinton campaign, listing potentially damaging quotes from the Democratic nominee’s paid but at that point still secret speeches. The report landed in campaign chairman John Podesta’s email, which was hacked, and then posted by WikiLeaks last week.

In a November 2013 speech to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Clinton pronounced herself proud to work with the trade group as a U.S. senator to “look for ways to help families facing foreclosure with concrete steps.”

NAR represents real estate agents, who had no authority to assist distressed homeowners. An April 2007 document lists NAR’s priorities in foreclosure mitigation, and they were able to get an amendment exempting mortgage debt forgiveness from being treated as earned income. But the rest amount to “urging” and “supporting” efforts to help homeowners that never happened.

Clinton has historically been far less critical of the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington than many other Democrats, and as secretary of state allowed two of her top aides — Tom Nides and Robert Hormats — to receive big payouts from their big-bank employers before entering public service.

“Thank you for lending me Tom Nides for the past two years,” Clinton said to a crowd at Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013. As The Intercept reported in July 2015, Nides moved from chief operating officer at Morgan Stanley into Clinton’s State Department, and when Clinton left Foggy Bottom, Nides went right back to Morgan Stanley as a vice chairman.

Clinton joked about the “culture shock” for Nides, working a government job. “You should have seen his face when he learned there were no stock options at the State Department. But he soon not only settled in very nicely, he became positively enthusiastic when I told him we did have our own plane.” Clinton also gushed about Hormats, who joined her at State after a career at Goldman Sachs, in a 2014 speech at JPMorgan Chase………………..for the remaining article please visit https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/behind-closed-doors-hillary-clinton-sympathized-with-goldman-sachs-over-financial-reform/

 

Download Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speech Flags: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3130829-HRC-Paid-Speeches-Flags.html

Goldman Sachs Fined $5 Billion for Violations Dating Back to 2008

…should anyone who owns a home that is subject to claims of securitization of their mortgage be at risk of losing their property?

…the government should stop the arrogant policy of letting most of the burden fall onto middle class property owners.

For a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498

So we have another “settlement” with one of the major players in the greatest economic crime in human history. But the cover-up of the actual transgressions  emanating from corruption on Wall Street continues. Government investigators should have had a press conference in which they clearly stated the nature of the violations — all of them. People deserve to hear the truth; and the government should stop the arrogant policy of letting most of the burden fall onto the middle class property owners.

The defects in government intervention give rise the illusion that these settlements only have effect on the investors and other financial institutions who were defrauded. Both the charges and the settlements seem far away from the ground level loans and foreclosures. But that is only because of deals in which the government’s continued complicity in “protecting the banking system — a policy that has rewarded trillion dollar banks and given them unfair advantage over the 7,000 other banks and credit unions.

Government now knows the truth about what Wall Street did. But they are restricting their comments in the fear that maybe notes and mortgages would be obviously void, making the MBS bonds worthless causing some world-wide panic and even aggression against the United States for allowing these enormous crimes to occur and continue.

For example, if the government investigators actually said that the REMIC Trusts were never funded, then the cases pending in which the REMIC Trust is named as the initiator of the foreclosure would dissolve into nothing. There would be no Plaintiff in judicial states and there would be no beneficiary in non-judicial states. Thus the filing of a substitution of trustee on a deed of trust would be void. It would raise jurisdictional issues in addition to the absence of any foundation for the assertion of the right to foreclose.

If government investigators identified patterns of conduct in the fabrication, forgery and utterance of false instruments, recording false instruments, then presumptions of validity might not apply to documents presented in court as evidence. Instead of the note being all the evidence needed from a “holder”, the actual underlying transactions would need to be proven by parties seeking foreclosure. If those transactions don’t actually exist, then it follows that the note, mortgage and claim are worthless.

And a borrower could point to the finding by administrative agencies and law enforcement agencies that these practices constitute customary and usual practices in the industry — a statement that would go a long way to convincing a judge that he or she should not assume or presume anything without proof of payment (consideration) in the origination of the loan with whoever ended up as Payee on the note. The same analysis would apply for the alleged acquisition of the “loan.”

If the party on the note or the party claiming they acquired the loan was NOT a party to an actual transaction in which they made the loan or paid to acquire it, then the note is evidence of a transaction that does not exist. Instead government is continuing to cover-up the fact that a policy decision has been made in which borrowers can fend for themselves against perpetrators of financial violence.

The view from the bench still presumes that they would not have a case to decide if there wasn’t a valid loan transaction and a valid acquisition of the loan. They see defects in documentation as splitting hairs. And to make matters worse I have personally seen judges strike virtually all discovery requests that address the issue of whether real transactions took place. And I have seen lawyers retreat over the one issue that would mean success or failure for their client. The task of defending illegal foreclosures would be far easier if the consensus view from the bench was that all the loans are suspect and need to be proven as to ownership, balance and authority.

These issues are almost impossible to prove at trial because the parties with the actual information and proof are not even at the trial. But they can be reached in discovery where on a motion to compel answers and a hearing on the objections from the “bank” or “servicer” the homeowner presses his demand for data and documents that show the actual existence or nonexistence of these transactions.

It would seem that the U.S. Department of Justice is coming out of the shadows on this. They are looking back to 10 years ago when the violations were at their most extreme. We may yet see criminal prosecutions. But putting people in jail does not address the essential issue, to wit: should anyone who owns a home that is subject to claims of securitization of their mortgage be at risk of losing their property?

 

Oops — Goldman Sachs Lets the Cat Out of the Bag — Naked Trades on Thin Air

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

General Information Only. Get a lawyer.

================================

see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/u-s-probes-treasuries-niche-that-some-investors-claim-is-rigged

Traders at global banks colluded to artificially inflate the price of instruments that allow them to sell U.S. debt before they own it, and then bought the debt at auctions for an artificially suppressed price, unfairly profiting at investors’ expense, according to several lawsuits filed against the banks beginning in July. The banks haven’t responded to those allegations in court.

“Vapor Money” is what the banks are saying about the defenses to foreclosure actions. As usual they are accusing us of doing what they are doing. Their argument is that if we can’t prove the chain of money, then we are dealing in hypothetical or theory; obviously a fool’s errand by their accounts. What difference does it make where the money came from on a loan as long as the money landed on the closing table? The first answer is how is a court to know one way or the other without the facts? And how is the Court to get the facts unless it permits the use of discovery to get the information from the only place it can be retrieved — the players in the securitization fail market.

I have been writing for years about the lack of any entity that could be legally identified as a creditor and therefore that the foreclosures were wrongful, illegal and are the root cause of our stumbling economy. Through the use of “naked” trades in which the appearance of a (nonexistent) trade is created the banks have created a “currency” market that is some twenty times the size of the actual fiat currency from all the countries in the world. Goldman just tried to sneak in a “disclosure” on the currency markets and they have effectively admitted that they are creating those trades out of thin air.They are attempting to sneak into the regulatory process to preserve the “shadow banking system” and exercising powers that only the Federal government should be exercising.

Doesn’t make any difference? Ask the treasury department whose unissued debt instruments are being used to create the appearance of profits for the banks; the existence of these vapor instruments traded on the anticipated issuance of US Treasury instruments is not only improper and illegal but actually effects the value of the instruments themselves when they are issued and sold. Does it matter where the money comes from and from whom the money is taken? Yes.

And that is exactly what happened with most of the “mortgage loans” during the mortgage meltdown era which is now ramping up again with such idiotic things as new securitizations of nonperforming loans. Think about that.

Just as a trade on an unissued treasury bill is a trade on nothing, so too is the trading before a “Loan” is issued. All those trades are based upon illusion, smoke and mirrors. The commercial paper market is supposed to take care of things like that. So too are the ratings and the insurance agencies. And the legal system is also supposed to be the legal bastion to combat over-reaching by the banks who have virtually unchecked powers to create anything they want — including “loans” they design for failure, bet on the failure and then sell the loans multiple times. So yes it does matter where the money came from and under what pretenses the money was secured.

Legally it is important because of basic contract law — offer, acceptance and consideration BOTH WAYS in a two party contract. Otherwise it is not a contract that can be enforced. It might be a contract, but it cannot be enforced — a distinction that nearly all judges miss. If the signature on the contract was procured by false pretenses then it isn’t even a contract. And since public policy requires disclosures of who is the actual creditor giving the “loan”,  the writing of the name of an originator who is merely a paid servant of unknown principals creates neither a contract nor any other type of enforceable agreement or instrument. Enforcement is patently against the public policy contained in the law of the land — the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

State laws concerning property and recording also prohibit such actions. If the transaction relied upon by the person requesting recording is nonexistent (they didn’t give the loan) then the instrument should not have been released from the closing table, much less recorded. So there is no valid recorded instrument upon which one could seek foreclosure. And the reason is simple: the entire reason for the recording statutes is provide certainty in the real estate market. If the truth is that we don’t know who the lender is then we cannot be sure, without litigation, who to pay when we wish to satisfy such a loan nor can we be certain of who has the right to collect payments or enforce the loan. Judges who are so set on not giving homeowners a “free house” are sacrificing the entire marketplace to accomplish their sense of morality.

And speaking of the “closing table” it is just plain wrong to say that the loan contract, even if it was real, was consummated the moment the “borrower” signed the papers. The funding is not received by the closing agent until hours, days, weeks, or even months after the alleged closing. So there is no “closing table.” It is now custom and practice in the industry to allow for post-closing underwriting, which is to say that there is no closing, according to the banks, until they fund the loan; So the money DOES  matter to the banks when it comes to the creation of the loan contract. Why wouldn’t it mean anything when they seek to terminate the loan contract through foreclosure?

The vapor is not in our theories of foreclosure defense. The vapor is in the pre-closing trading that eventually produces money that goes to pay the borrower, a former “lender”, a seller etc. At some point in the food processor that chews up the paper (lost notes etc) and title chains and money chains before “closing” and before “foreclosure” money ends up on the table. All of it was done, as with the rigged treasury debt market, BEFORE the investor gave its investment money to the selling brokers, and BEFORE the borrower signed, sometimes BEFORE the borrower actually signs the loan application and WITHOUT disclosures that would have sent the bankers to jail. —

Imagine a disclosure like this: “Borrower acknowledges that the party described on the note as ‘Lender’ is not the lender. The actual party whose money is being used to fund the transaction is unknown and shall never be known.”

Or imagine a disclosure like this: “Investor acknowledges that he is purchasing the certificates of an entity that does not exist, where the proceeds will not be paid to that entity. The underwriter and related entities will use such proceeds as they see fit within their sole discretion and shall not report nor respond to requests for reports on the use of proceeds.”

QUESTION TO THE SEC: If the certificates were not mortgage backed, why do they qualify for deregulation for REMICs? Why have you not investigated the fact that the Trusts received no money, assets, business, payments, or even a bank account?

JP Morgan Corners Gold Market — where did they get the money?

Zerohedge.com notes that JP Morgan has cornered the market in gold derivatives. They ask how the CFTC, who supposedly regulates the commodities markets could have let this happen. I ask some deeper questions. If JPM has cornered the market on those derivatives, is this a reflection that they, perhaps in combination with others, have cornered the market on actual gold reserves? Zerohedge.com leaves this question open.

I suggest that this position in derivatives (private contracts that circumvent the actual futures market) is merely a reflection of a much larger position — the actual ownership or right to own gold reserves that could total more than a trillion dollars in gold. And the further question is that if JPM has actually purchased gold or rights to own gold, where did the money come from? And the same question could be asked about other commodities like tin, aluminum and copper where Chase and Goldman Sachs have already been fined for manipulating market prices.

This is the first news corroborating what I have previously reported — that trillions of dollars have been diverted from investors and stolen from homeowners by the major banks, parked off shore, and then laundered through investments in natural resources including precious metals. This diversion occurred as an integral part of the mortgage madness and meltdown. It was intentional and knowing behavior — not bad judgment. It was bad because of what happened to anyone who wasn’t an insider bank (see Thirteen Bankers by Simon Johnson). But to attribute stupidity to a group of bankers who now have more money, property and investments than anyone else in the world is pure folly. What Is stupid about pursuing a strategy that brings a geometric increase in wealth and power? This was no accident.

And the answer is yes, all of this is relevant to foreclosure litigation. The question is directed at the source of funds for JP Morgan, Chase, Goldman Sachs and the other main players on Wall Street. And the answer is that they stole it. In the complicated world of Wall Street finance, the people at the Department of Justice and the SEC and other regulatory agencies, there are scant resources to investigate this threat to the entire financial system, the economy in each of the world marketplaces, and thus to national security for the U.S. And other nations.

It would be naive in the context of current litigation over mortgages and Foreclosures to expect any judge to allow pleading, discovery or trial on evidence that traces these investments backward from gold derivatives to the origination or acquisition of mortgages. Perhaps one of the regulators who read this blog might make some inquiries but there is little hope that they will connect the dots. But it is helpful to know that there is plenty of corroboration for the position that the REMIC Trusts could not have originated or acquired mortgages because they were never funded with the money given to the broker dealers who sold “mortgage bonds” issued by those Trusts with no chance of repayment because the money was never used to fund the trusts.

The unfunded trusts could not originate or acquire the loans because they never had the money. In fact, they never had a trust account. Thus in a case where the Plaintiff is US Bank as trustee is not only wrong because the PSA and their own website says that trustees don’t initiate Foreclosures — that is reserved to the servicers who appear to have the actual powers of a trustee. The real argument is that the trust was never a party to the loan because the trust was never party to a transaction in which any loan was acquired or originated.

Investors and governmental agencies have sued the broker dealers accusing them of fraud (not bad judgment) and mismanagement of money — all of which lawsuits are being settled almost as quickly as they are filed. The issue is not just bad loans and underwriting of bad loans. That would be breach of contract and could not be subject to claims of fraud. The fraud is that the investment banks took the money from investors and then used it for their own purposes. The first step was skimming a large percentage of the investor funds from the top, in addition to fake underwriting fees on the fake issuance of mortgage bonds from an unfunded trust.

And here is where the first step in mortgage transactions and foreclosure litigation reveals itself — compensation that was never disclosed closed to the borrower in violation of he the Truth in lending Act. While most judges consider the 3 year statute of limitations to run absolutely, it will eventually be recognized by the courts that the statute doesn’t start to run until discovery of the undisclosed compensation by an undisclosed party who was a principal player in permeating the loan. This will be a fight but eventually success will visit someone like Barbara Forde in Scottsdale or in one of the cases my firm handles directly or where we provide litigation support.

The reason it is relevant is that by tracing the funds, it can be determined that the actual “lender” was a group of investors who thought they were buying mortgage bonds and who did not know their money had been diverted into the pockets of the broker dealers, and then used to create fictitious transactions that the banks falsely reported as trading profits. In order to do this the broker dealers had to create the illusion of mortgage loans that were industry standard loans and they had to divert the apparent ownership of those loans from the investors through fraudulent paper trails based on the appearance of transactions that in fact never happened. In truth, contrary to their duties under the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement, the broker dealers created a false “proprietary” trade in which the investment bank was the actual trader on both sides of the transaction.

They booked some of these “trades” as profits from proprietary trading, but the truth is that this was a yield spread premium that falls squarely within the definition of a yield spread premium — for which the investment bank is liable to be named as a party to the closing of the loan with borrowers. As such, the pleading and proof would be directed at the fact that the investment bank was hiding their identity or even their existence along with the fact that their compensation consisted of a yield spread premium that sometimes was greater than the principal amount of the loan. Under federal law under these facts (if proven) and the pleading would establish that the investment bank should be a party to the claim, affirmative defenses or counterclaim of borrowers for “refund” of the undisclosed compensation, treble damages, interest and attorney fees. I might add that common law doctrines that are not vulnerable to defenses of the statute of limitations under TILA or RESPA, could be used to the same effect. See the Steinberger decision.

Lawyers take note. Instead of getting lost in the weeds of the sufficiency of documentation, you could be pursuing a claim that is likely to more than offset the entire loan. I make this suggestion to attorneys and not to pro se litigants who will probably never have the ability to litigate this issue. My firm offers litigation support to those law firms who have competent litigators who can appear in court and argue this position after our research, drafting and scripting of litigation strategies. Once taught and practiced, those firms should no longer require us to provide support except perhaps for our expert witnesses (including myself). For more information on litigation support services offered to attorneys call 850-765-1236 or write to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

I conclude with this: it is unlikely that any judge would seriously entertain discharging liability or stop enforcement of a mortgage merely because of a defect in the documentation. These defects should be used — but only as corroboration for a more serious argument. That the attempted enforcement of the documentation is a cover-up of a fraud against the investors and the borrower; this requires artful litigating to show the judge that your client has a legitimate claim that offsets the alleged debt to the investors who are seeking damage awards not from the borrowers but from the investment bankers. As long as the Judge believes that the right lender and the right borrower are in his court, the judge is not likely to make rulings that would create additional uncertainties in a market that is already unstable.

I have always maintained that a pincer action by investor lenders and homeowner borrowers would bring home the point. The real culprits have been left out of foreclosure litigation. Tying investment banks to the loan closing would enable the homeowner to show that the intermediaries are in fact inserting themselves as parties in interest — to the detriment of the real parties. The investors are bringing their claims against the broker dealers. Now it is time for the borrowers to do their part. This could lead to global settlements in which borrowers and investors are able to mitigate (or even eliminate) their losses.

Wall Street banks shifting “profits” from mortgage bonds into natural resources

Wall Street banks know all about leveraging. They need to bring back the huge quantity of money they stole from the U.S. economy that they have secreted around the world (without paying a dime in taxes). The strategy they adopted was to bring the money from the shadow banking sector into the real banking world by “investing” in natural resources. The reason for the choice is obvious — high demand for the raw materials, high liquidity in the marketplace for both the products and the futures and related contracts for “trading profits” (like the “trading profits they created with investor money in the mortgage bond market before any loans were made), and an opportunity for virtually unlimited “leverage” where they could control prices and bet against the very same investments they were selling to their customers.

The leverage comes from a primary investment in the warehousing and transport of raw materials and secondarily taking positions in the ownership of natural resources. This allows them to manipulate the cost of raw materials — like copper and aluminum (see articles below), manipulate the politics in our country so that infrastructure repairs and rebuilding is out off until there is a tragedy of a large collapsing bridge killing thousands, and manipulate the bidding process for natural resources (like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) so that there is a level of panic that causes the nation to send ten times the price of rebuilding now. The natural resources market is basically the only game they can play because it is the only marketplace that is large enough to absorb trillions of dollars stolen from Americans and people all over the world in the securitization scam.

Just as securitization was an illusion, making the base investment (mortgage loans) non existent at the same moment they were created or acquired, so will be the exotic investment vehicles now being prepared for both institutional and ordinary investors that will cover the multiple sales of the same bundle of commodities. Here we go again! Another boom and bust.

Tue, Aug 13

CFTC subpoenas metal warehouse companies • The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has reportedly subpoenaed Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan (JPM), Glencore Xstrata (GLCNF.PK) and their subsidiaries for documents relating to warehouses they operate for aluminum and other metals. • The agency has requested information dating back to January 2010; it also wants documents relevant to the companies’ relationships with the London Metals Exchange. • The CFTC’s investigation follows allegations that the activities of warehousing companies have artificially boosted the price of metals, particularly aluminum. • Earlier speculation said the CFTC had sent subpoenas to an unnamed metals warehousing firm.

Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1216972?source=ipadportfolioapp

Federal Reserve Continues Welfare Payments to Banks

If the bond buying program had been directed at direct assistance to investors and homeowners, the crisis would already be over and GDP would be rising by at least 3.5%, unemployment at 5% or less, and the deficit would be eliminated on an annual basis and vastly reduced long term. Debt would cease to be a problem which means that Banks would lose their position of complete dominance.

As Iceland shows all day and all month and all year, even the banks would be prospering and litigation would be virtually eliminated with respect to the validity and enforcement of mortgages and assignments. The cleanup would become the cure. The corruption of title is not problem in several countries because the county recorders wouldn’t accept the garbage that the banks were filing here. We have toxic title and the illusion of a healthy economy. Others do not have toxic title and are dealing with reality, warts and all.

Fed Announces Continued Bond Purchases, Mortgage Rates Fall
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20130626_bondpurchases.htm

It’s Official: Bank of America Has the Worst Reputation in the Banking Industry
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/25/its-official-bank-of-america-has-the-worst-reputat.aspx

17 Signs That Most Americans Will Be Wiped Out By The Coming Economic Collapse
http://www.zerohedge.com/node/475692

Meet the Nation’s Toughest New Foreclosure Protection Law
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/06/meet-nations-toughest-new-foreclosure-protection-law/5952/

BUYING A HOUSE, BUYER BEWARE! Foreclosure documentation issues trap investors, creating litigation risk
http://www.housingwire.com/fastnews/2013/06/21/foreclosure-documentation-issues-trap-investors-creating-litigation-risk

Bank Of America Allegedly Gave Cash Bonuses To Workers Pushing Homeowners Into Foreclosure
http://www.businessinsider.com/bofa-sued-over-foreclosure-practices-2013-6

WHY WOULD A BANK BE SO ANXIOUS TO FORECLOSE IF IT WAS GOING TO ABANDON THE PROPERTY? Nearly 3 in 10 Oregon homes in foreclosure vacant
http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2013/06/28_of_oregon_homes_in_foreclos.html

Foreclosures Are Still a Concern
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553660440428142.html

Florida puts a limit on deficiency Judgments but what happens when the real creditor shows up? Banks Go after Homeowners Years after Foreclosure
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/banks-go-after-homeowners-years-after-foreclosure-130623?news=850369

Conflict for the big accounting firms? They did the audits and certified the balance sheets of both the investment banking companies and the ratings companies. A bad report card would put them at risk: Another Conflicted Foreclosure Review: PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ally/ResCap
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemckenna/2013/06/25/another-conflicted-foreclosure-review-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-allyrescap/

Regulatory Looting, Promontory-Style: Botched Foreclosure Reviews Alone Generate More than Double Goldman’s Revenues per Employee
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/regulatory-looting-promontory-style-botched-foreclosure-reviews-alone-generate-more-than-double-goldmans-revenues-per-employees.html

Promontory Financial Group Paid More Than $900 Million for Independent Foreclosure Review
http://4closurefraud.org/2013/06/24/promontory-financial-group-paid-more-than-900-million-for-independent-foreclosure-review/

 

Fear of Unraveling the Truth: Is the Fed Running Interference for the Banks

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Comment and Analysis: AIG correctly decided not to try to bite the hand that saved it when it refused the demand of Hank Greenberg to join in his lawsuit against the government. Greenberg, some will recall, was forced out of AIG in a scandal in 2005.

Now AIG is attempting to open the door to suing banks besides the suit it already filed against Bank of America for selling them worthless trash instead of high rated bonds that were safe and verified. But the Fed created Maiden Lane II stands in the way even though it has already wound down its affairs.

The argument is that AIG transferred its litigation right to Maiden Lane. So the question is whether that was standard procedure and did the maiden Lane entities get such a transfer of litigation rights on ALL the debts that were  “contributed” to the Maiden Lane entities. While this particular suit has more to do with life insurance than mortgages, it has far reaching implications.

The questions raised by all these “transfers” is who transferred what to whom, when and what did the Maiden Lane entities actually get in terms of legal title to something. If they did get legal title to either the bogus mortgage bonds or the loans themselves, then why are there foreclosures in the name of other entities?

And if these entities were given the opportunity to dump the bad bonds or loans onto the Fed and be bailed out 100 cents on the dollar, then why is there any balance in any loan receivable account relating to the origination of ANY loan involved in the Fed transfers?

The can of worms covered over by the Maiden Lane transactions is deep and ugly. Similar transactions occurred all over Wall Street as some parties received 100 cents while others were left out in the cold — especially investors who put up the money to originate the financial transactions in the first place.

As a practice hint, I would say that you should inquire as to whether the subject loan is claimed to be part of an alleged investment pool that issued mortgage-backed bonds and which delivered ownership in indivisible shares in the underlying mortgages.

If yes, then you should inquire as to whether any or all of the bonds were the subject of a transfer to any of the Maiden Lane entities or some other party. This would jive with what I am told is the fact that more than 50% of the REMIC trusts have long since ceased existence in any way, manner, shape or form.

Then you should inquire as to whether the subject loan was included in said transfer and if so, the how? Assignment, indorsement, etc. And you should inquire about the amount of money received for the transfer, how and when it was paid and production of copies of said payment.

The point here is that the parties who are initiating the foreclosures are (a) complete strangers to the transaction having neither funded nor purchased the receivable or loan and (b) that even if they were at some point owners of the loan, they transferred it out for payment which mitigates the loss and the balance due on the loan receivable account. If Maiden Lane II is winding down as reported, where did the loans go from there? The answer from inside Wall Street was they were “re-securitized” into new trusts, all private label away from the sight of investors, borrowers and regulators.

In the end, the result I am after here is that the loan was paid down in whole or in part and the complexity of the way the banks were bailed out is not a license to receive yet another windfall. The parties who paid have a right of contribution and perhaps a right to foreclose the mortgages.

But without the identity of the current real creditor, compliance with HAMP and other programs is impossible because you need the injured party at the table.

A party who once held the receivable but was paid should not be receiving a second payment or a free house through foreclosure just because they have presented part of the deal. Discovery should include ALL of the deal, which is why the Master Servicer should be the target of your investigations including the parent investment banking firm.

Goldman and other banks are reporting record profits resulting not from lending but from trading activity, which is the way I have said from the beginning that they would repatriate the money they stole is increments so that the value of their stock would appear to be worth more and more.

But think about it. What other managed fund is getting such bountiful results? Answer: NONE. That indicates to me that the proprietary trading is a ruse in which the banks are claiming profits derived from trading with funds obtained illegally and parked off shore. By controlling the transactions end to end, they can simply set the amount of profits they want to report and continue on for a long time considering estimates of anywhere from $3-$10 trillion that has been siphoned out of the world economy and for which there has been no accounting or accountability.

These are funds that SHOULD be credited to investors and the loan receivable accounts of borrowers.

A.I.G. Seeks Approval to File More Bank Suits

By

Since the summer of 2011, the insurance giant American International Group has been battling Bank of America over claims that the bank packaged and sold it defective mortgages that dealt A.I.G. billions of dollars in losses.

Now A.I.G. wants to be able to sue other banks that sold it mortgage-backed securities that plunged in value during the financial crisis. It has not said which banks, but possibilities include Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

But to sue, A.I.G. first must win a court fight with an entity controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which the insurer says is blocking its efforts to pursue the banks that caused it financial harm.

The dispute illustrates the web of financial instruments that A.I.G. and the federal government became tangled in as the insurer nearly collapsed in 2008 and required a vast taxpayer bailout. It also shows the complexity of apportioning blame, five years after the financial crisis, and making wrongdoers pay for their share of the harm.

According to a lawsuit filed Friday, A.I.G. is seeking a declaration from a New York state judge that it has the right to pursue “billions of dollars of fraud and other tort claims that exist against numerous financial institutions,” even though Fed officials have said A.I.G. gave up that right.

“If I were the general counsel of A.I.G., I would seek this kind of declaratory judgment,” said Henry T. C. Hu, a former regulator who is now a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “I don’t know whether I’d win, but it’s certainly worth trying.”

Much of A.I.G.’s rescue was needed because it didn’t have money in 2008 to cover guarantees that it sold banks in case the complex securities in their portfolios defaulted. But the latest dispute centers on a less familiar part of the bailout — the part in which reserves were removed from A.I.G.’s life insurance units and replaced with what turned out to be troubled mortgage securities.

The securitized housing loans lost value so fast when the bubble burst that some of A.I.G.’s life insurers risked being shut down by state insurance regulators. The Fed stepped in instead, and A.I.G.’s current lawsuit centers on the relationship that formed between the insurer and its rescuer as a result.

The Fed paid about $44 billion to extricate A.I.G.’s life insurance units from soured trades, and set up a special entity, Maiden Lane II, to buy the plunging mortgage securities for $20.8 billion. Those securities had an original face value of $39.3 billion.

Maiden Lane II is the sole defendant in A.I.G.’s lawsuit. The complaint says that at the moment Maiden Lane II bought the securities, it locked the insurance units into an $18 billion loss — the difference between the securities’ face value and their price in late 2008, arguably the bottom of the market. A.I.G. attributes a large chunk of its losses to the mortgage securities that it bought from Bank of America. It sued the bank for $10 billion in August 2011.

But one of Bank of America’s defenses is that A.I.G. lacks standing, having given its litigation rights to Maiden Lane II.

Last month, for instance, two senior Fed officials submitted declarations saying they believed that as part of the sale of assets to Maiden Lane II, A.I.G. had agreed not to go after any of the banks.

That prompted A.I.G. to file its suit, arguing that when it sold the tainted assets to Maiden Lane II, it did yield some litigation rights, but not the ones giving it the right to bring fraud complaints against the banks that put the securities together.

A.I.G. said those banks had misled its life insurance and money management businesses regarding the quality of the securities, and “obtained artificially high credit ratings” so the securities would pass the life insurers’ investment rules.

A.I.G.’s lawsuit is separate from one that until late last week it considered joining, which argued that the New York Fed acted unconstitutionally during the bailout, harming the insurer’s shareholders.

That lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Maurice R. Greenberg, a former chief executive of A.I.G. and a major shareholder. Mr. Greenberg had hoped the company would join the lawsuit, but the possibility that A.I.G. would sue its rescuer drew sharp criticism and A.I.G.’s board decided against it.

The new suit isn’t seeking financial compensation from the Fed.

The New York Fed, which has sole control of Maiden Lane II, declined to discuss the matter and has not yet responded to the complaint. A hearing on the arguments in the Bank of America case is scheduled for Jan. 29 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

A.I.G. did not name other banks it would take action against, but it bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that included Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns, which was acquired during the financial crisis by JPMorgan. Much of the securities were sold to A.I.G. by Lehman Brothers, which collapsed in September 2008.

A.I.G. watchers are intrigued by the newest chapter of the story.

“A.I.G. has a credible claim that they’re pursuing aggressively,” said Michael J. Aguirre, a San Diego lawyer who is representing a California couple who argue the Fed was bilked when it bailed out A.I.G. “The question now is how aggressive the Fed is going to be on pushing back.”

“Is the government going to say, ‘We’re not pursuing these claims, but we’re not going to let anybody else pursue them either — we’re just going to let the banks walk away with fraud profits?’ ” he added.

Although it received relatively little scrutiny, the life insurance part of A.I.G.’s bailout was costlier than the better-known part involving A.I.G.’s Financial Products unit, which sold the notorious guarantees, known as credit-default swaps.

In 2011, A.I.G. tried to buy back the entire pool of mortgage securities from Maiden Lane II, but its offer, about $15 billion, was rejected.

Subsequently other bidders acquired all the assets, and last February the New York Fed announced it had made a $2.8 billion profit on its roughly $20 billion investment in the rescue entity. Terms of the bailout called for it to give one-sixth of any profit to A.I.G.

Maiden Lane II no longer holds any of the mortgage securities and is winding down its affairs.

%d bloggers like this: